Ramer v. Ramer - Superior Court - December 11, 2006 http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a27040_06.pdf
The trial court erred when it failed to appoint a "qualified professional" under 23 Pa. C.S. 5303(b) and (c) to evaluate and counsel father, who had two convictions of crimes listed under sec. 5303(b)(9) and (10) -- indecent assault and indecent exposure.
"qualified professional" -- A licensed psychologist was not a "qualified professional" where the psychologist admitted that he had no special training or expertise concerning sex offenders. "Qualified" requires that the "professional have expertise tied to the particular offense under assessment....[T]he statute attempts to ensure that the court will receive the kind of information necessary to assess whether the offending parents, with his or her unique criminal conviction history, poses a threat of harm to the child...The statute requires a sensitive inquiry aided by a professional whose qualifications allow him or her to assess the offending parents in light of the particular criminal conduct that has triggered the inquiry....[S]exual offenders in particular often present with unique mental health issues."
counseling - Sec. 5303(c) requires the qualified professional to provide "counseling to an offending parent" which "shall include a program of treatment or individual therapy designed to rehabilitate a parent..." A "one-time evaluation....did not...meet the description of 'counseling in section 5303(c)." Moreover counseling from 2000 does not satisfy the statute, which "requires counseling...in the present, i.e., at the time custody is under assessment."
required finding that the parent does not pose a threat - The trial court's reliance on the "absence of evidence that a parent poses a threat to the child...is an improper reading of the rule, which imposes an affirmative duty to determine that the parents 'does not pose a threat of hard to the child. 23 Pa. C.S. sec. 5303(b). This is to be accomplished through the appointment of a qualified professional, the provision of counseling to the offending parent in the present, and the taking of testimony from the qualified professional regarding the same. Such did not occur here, and, thus, we vacate the custody order and remand with instructions to comply with the plain language of 23 Pa. C.S. sections 5303(b)( and (c)."
